Sunday, February 26, 2012

World Bank Wants Control Of The High Seas

As a proponent of legitimate free markets, I am always up for a little creative entrepreneurship. However, there is a considerable difference between building productive markets, and engaging in monopolistic piracy. Global conglomerates and the elites that operate them have long been familiar with the pirate’s life, and not the fun filled adventure-time rope swinging swashbuckling brand. In fact, it was elitists like Sir Francis Drake, commissioned by the English monarchy, who embodied this disturbing covert bedlam. We’re talking murder, mayhem, and blood-money, folks! So, it should be of no surprise to anyone that the thieving mercantile swine of our era are returning to the high seas to plunder once again, only in a much more subversive and devious manner.

This past week, World Bank President Robert Zoellick made his organization’s intentions for oceanic regimentation known, at least in a candy coated way, at the Economist World Oceans Summit in Singapore:

Over the last several years, World Bank has seen fit to insinuate itself into the environmental movement as a “bastion” of green ideology. In reality, World Bank has long used the threats of environmental destabilization (some of them real, some of them fake) as tools for the centralization of resources into the hands of mega-corporations. In fact, if one was to attempt to sum up exactly what it is that World Bank actually does in a single phrase, it would probably be “resource domination”. This domination is achieved through the strict lending guidelines that sovereign countries have to commit to in order to attain financing from the supranational entity.

Like a greasy loan shark working for a hardboiled mob cartel, World Bank’s M.O. is to lend large capital packages (made with money or credit created out of thin air) which the target country and its government obviously cannot afford to pay back. These loans often stipulate that the country relinquish control of its natural resources, the true wealth of the nation, over to international corporate bodies for “management”. Through this process, World Bank removes competition from a market and hands designated companies (globalist front-companies) the keys to the kingdom.

Environmental manipulation has been used in the past by World Bank as a cover for resource piracy. Global corporations including Enron, Bechtel, GM, and Monsanto from the late 90’s onward have been handed coveted water rights to entire communities and nations under the guise of managing “water scarcity”. This control of the water supply has extended even to rainwater collection. World Bank’s argument in the case of water privatization was that monetizing the resource would create “incentives” for populations to conserve water. That is to say, the higher they could increase the cost of water, the more coveted it would become, and the more careful people would be when using it. This feudalistic idea was expressed clearly in a World Water Council (founded with the help of the Vice President of World Bank) document entitled “The Long Term Vision For Water, Life, And Environment”:http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsaca/i/fulltext/mirh/education.pdf

In 1998 the World Water Forum expounded a need for control and regulation over the planet’s water supply. This meeting was packed with top multinational corporations and commissioned by a viper’s nest of global elites, including:

“Water is an economic good and its economic value should be recognized in the allocation of scarce water resources to competing uses. While this should not prevent people from meeting their basic needs for water services at affordable prices, the price for water must be set at a level that encourages conservation and wise use...”http://www.waternunc.com/gb/secwwf11.htm

This methodology of artificially raising prices through the issuance of securities to enforce a particular environmentalist ideal, in the end, has NOTHING to do with protecting the environment. Essentially, it creates the derivitization of natural resources that is the calling card of globalized tyranny. Cap and Trade programs were designed to monetize air usage. Energy derivatives were used by Enron to allow easier manipulation of electric and oil prices. Water privatization was designed to corporatize a free flowing resource and create artificial scarcity. And now, World Bank wants to apply the same con game to one of the last economic commons; the ocean. The only beneficiaries in these schemes have always been large conglomerates, along with a smattering of stock investors who revel in the idea of erecting entire markets out of absolutely imaginary products with no real inherent value.

As with water privatization, the flood of massive bureaucracy in the guise of corporate management over oceanic usage will only create a mind boggling maze of red tape that will thwart all business interests except the largest. This is entirely deliberate.

Not only does it cause prices to rise to levels beyond what the impoverished (a global majority) can pay for a commodity, but it also squeezes out small business owners whose only advantage was the level playing field of an open resource. On the oceans of World Bank, a small fishing outfit will have no chance to make a living, because the permit process, new taxes, and new legal requirements, will empty their bank accounts before they ever get started, leaving only the big boys to ravage the seas at will, and legally, because they will have paid the exorbitant fees for the right to do so.

There is also a very good reason why Zoellick at the World Oceans Summit mentioned fishery issues so often, and why he is so keen on the idea of international regulations on their operations.

On dry land, companies like Monsanto are the slavemasters of food supply. The centralization of national farming infrastructures has given these companies unrivaled power over how we eat, and thus, how most of the populace survives. However, the ocean, an unparalleled food source, is still a decentralized region of production. Anyone can fish it, almost anywhere, without having to ask permission from the government, or a private company. This obviously does not sit well with World Bank, not because they fear overfishing, but because it provides a sovereign means of survival, allowing people to remain independent from the globalist system.

By utterly corporatizing resources that have through all of time been freely accessible to every human being, World Bank and the elitists they serve hope to build a framework for total centralization of all means of production and sustenance on Earth. Does this sound like mad scientist stuff? Absolutely. Does that make it any less factual or terrifying? Not a chance.

The real cleverness in using the environmental aspect of ocean management lay in the reality that there is, indeed, severe damage being done to many parts of the ocean’s ecosystems. Cap and trade is based on the lie of anthropomorphic global warming and highly misrepresented data on the effects of CO2 (just ask any global warming enthusiast why NASA and the CRU have never released the source data for their experiments to prove that their claims are true). The monetization of the air we breathe can be defeated in the minds of the general public for this reason. But with the oceans, legitimate pollution is occurring. This gives World Bank a much more tangible argument for supranational regulation in the name of environmentalism. What people must realize, though, is that this regulation will have no effect on the deterioration of the seas. In fact, it will likely hasten their destruction.

The international nature of how the oceans are utilized also opens the globalization door to World Bank. When a supranational entity is given de facto governance over a region that is used by all sovereign countries, it gives that entity the ability to interfere in the decision making processes of those nations without any input or respect to the people who live within them. For Americans, this means being susceptible to laws created by men far outside our borders who we cannot vote in, vote out, or chase down with our pitchforks when the voting is rigged. This has always been the goal of globalists; to create the most dominant and unaccountable ruling body in history, while at the same time convincing the masses that we cannot live without it.

At bottom, centralization is the foundation for the collectivist fallacy; that there is a “greater good” that must be maintained by the establishment. This process makes the establishment indispensable in the minds of the public. The elites in power today have chosen environmental dogma as their version of the “greater good”, because the “end of the world as we know” can be used to rationalize almost any brand of despotic behavior, from food and water rationing as a method for social conditioning, to population control or even depletion in the name of “saving the planet”. Always beware the true motivations of any governing institution that seeks to assert itself as the purveyor of all that is “best” for the people. Such groups are rarely if ever what they seem…

With the faster reviews, there will be even less time spent on evaluating the potential dangers. Why? Because Monsanto is losing sales with longer approval terms.

The changes are expected to take full effect in March when they’re published in the Federal Register. The USDA’s goal is to cut the approval time for GMO crops in half in order to speedily implement them into the global food supply. The current USDA process takes longer than they would like due to ‘public interest, legal challenges, and the challenges associated with the advent of national organic food standards‘ says USDA deputy administrator Michael Gregoire.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, problems like public interest (activist groups attempting to bring the dangers of GMO crops to light), legal challenges (farmers suing Monsanto over genetic contamination), and national food standards are all getting in the way of their prime goal — to help Monsanto unleash their latest untested GMO creation. In fact, the concern is that Monsanto may be losing cash flow as nations like Brazil speed genetically modified seeds through laughable approval processes.

Steve Censky, chief executive officer of the American Soybean Association, states it quite plainly. This is a move to help Monsanto and other biotechnology giants squash competition and make profits. After all, who cares about public health?

'It is a concern from a competition standpoint,' Censky said in a telephone interview.

Today, without much fanfare, US debt to GDP hit 101% with the latest issuance of $32 billion in 2 Year Bonds. If the moment when this ratio went from double to triple digits is still fresh in readers minds, is because it is: total debt hit and surpassed the most recently revised Q4 GDP on January 30, or just three weeks ago. Said otherwise, it has taken the US 21 days to add a full percentage point to this most critical of debt sustainability ratios: but fear not, with just under $1 trillion in new debt issuance on deck in the next 9 months, we will be at 110% in no time. Still, this trend made us curious to see who has been buying (and selling) US debt over the past year. The results are somewhat surprising. As the chart below, which highlights some of the biggest and most notable holders of US paper, shows, in the period December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2011, there have been two very distinct shifts: those who are going all in on the ponzi, and those who are gradually shifting away from the greenback, and just as quietly, and without much fanfare of their own, reinvesting their trade surplus in something distinctly other than US paper. The latter two: China and Russia, as we have noted in the past. Yet these are more than offset by... well, we'll let the readers look at the chart below based on TIC data and figure out it.

That the Fed is now actively monetizing US debt is beyond dispute (although some semantic holdouts remain - we are quite happy for them). Alas, with China, which has traditionally been the biggest buyer of US paper, no longer buying Treasurys, we are confident that the Fed will have no choice but to be dragged kicking and screaming once again into the fray, especially since traditional buyers of paper, even when allowing for exponential repo market leveraging (and someone please look at what is going on in the BoNY, State Street sponsored $15 trillion quicksand of repo'ed securities, which is the biggest black hole in the shadow banking system and will be the next pillar of the ponzi system to collapse) will be unable to keep up with US issuance. Especially since Primary Dealers already saw their Treasury holding rise to an all time high in the past week, and are loaded to the gills with US paper. So who is buying? Why Japan and the UK.

Japan and the UK? Hmm, if these two names sound oddly familiar, allow us to refresh one's memory. Behold the pristine leverage condition of both these two countries, in all its glory.

Hint: look at the far left.

So somehow the world's two most indebted countries (recall that Japan is about to in total pass 1 quadrillion debt) are out there and buying up the biggest amount of US debt (after the Fed of course)? Sorry, but while we are amusing by this attempt by the global ponzi regime to keep itself alive (even as Russia and China prudently step aside from the mauling that is sure to follow), whereby the most indebted nations keep buying each other's debt in the most transparent and potentially deadly shell game in history, we are also confident this is unsustainable. Which means the Fed will have no choice but to step in. And since when it comes to the capital markets, the ride up is over since we have now crossed the point where incremental profits are drowned by incremental input costs (thank you $106 WTI), the Fed now has just one mandate: to keep the US fiscal machine well-greased by buying up US debt at zero (and beginning in May negative) rates, through wanton monetization. 2012 may prove to be quite eventful after all.

Average:

4.9

Your rating: NoneAverage: 4.9(20 votes)

* * * *

This blogger, Steven G. Erickson, is upset. It has been a hard couple of weeks. I thought I had employment and lodging. I don't. For whatever reason a rug was pulled out from under my feet.

I have just coins in my pocket. No paper money. It does suck.

I went from having 3 houses, a family, and from working days, nights, weekends, and often 7 days a week, I was facing early retirement and a life of comfort from all of my hard work. Terrorist, terrorizing police and their rigged courts saw to it that all of my efforts would be punished in a very cruel way. I was railroaded to prison and now I have nothing. I almost froze to death, one Winter, out in the snow in the woods in Vermont. The American Dream can now be a daily, living Nightmare.

After hearing from Ritt Goldstein, Rich Murzin, Jeffrey R. Yeaw, Kathleen Dickson, Chris Kennedy, Michael Nowacki, and so many others, I realize that I am not alone. Anyone who stands up to tyranny is a target of the machine.

I want to report out on the road. I want to help produce a fictional independent movie to show those with a 30 second attention span what is really going on. I don't have funding and don't have a job, so that dream is not reality. Keeping warm and keeping fed is a real concern. Having worked my entire life, honestly, this should not exist in a supposedly Free Country. Hard work, raising a family, owning a home, and being self-employed or having a small business can be punished in modern America.